Economic evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship in primary care: a systematic review and quality assessment

Abstract

BackgroundPrimary care accounts for 80%–90% of antimicrobial prescriptions, making this setting an important focus for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions.ObjectivesTo collate the findings and critically appraise the qualities of economic evaluation studies of AMS or related interventions aimed at reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care.MethodsA systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care was performed. Published literature were retrieved through a search of Medline, Embase, EconLit and Web of Science databases for the period 2010 to 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist and Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment.ResultsOf the 2722 records identified, 12 studies were included in the review (8 trial-based and 4 modelled evaluations). The most common AMS interventions were communication skills training for health professionals and C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP-POCT). Types of economic evaluations included in the review were cost-effectiveness (7 studies), cost-utility (1), cost-benefit (2), cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (1) and cost analysis (1). While six of the studies found AMS interventions to be cost-effective, the other six reported them as not cost-effective or inconclusive. The quality of the studies ranged from good to low.ConclusionsThere were significant variations in cost-effectiveness of AMS interventions across studies and depending on the inclusion of cost components such as the cost of antimicrobial resistance. However, communication skills training and CRP-POCT were frequently cost-effective or cost-beneficial for reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing.